 by BroMatt on October 11th, 2007, 8:15 am
I decided to post this as a blog instead of a post because it more of my thoughts than it is a discussion. I often get a chuckle on the method some folks use when they try and discredit the King James Bible. To start, I must say, some folks think that I am too much for the KJV while others think I am not KJV enough. I believe that I am right where I am supposed to be in believing that the KJV is God's preserved Words for the English speaking people. I believe the only victory Satan has with the translation issue is with the division that the KJV-Only controversy is causing. Split churches, separation of fellowship, hatred between believers, etc...
This is a classic statement, the KJV crowd is being accused of splitting churches, separation of fellowship and hatred? Sorry to be so blunt, but that is not a well thought out response. The KJV crowd used to be the one to blame for these kind of comments toward others, but I have noticed a change in the attitude of those trying to discredit the Bible. Being an admin on a KJV board I have had lots of non-KJV folks yell at me in anger because I hold the position that the KJV is perfectly preserved. Lots of hatred toward me because of the Bible I choose. Now, I would be foolish to lump all the non-KJV folks together with such statements as above. Some good folks do love the Lord and use other versions of the Bible. I do NOT agree with those folks Bible versions they are reading, nor will I lump all non-KJV folks together. Do not worry folks, I will tackle the issue and not attack the person!
Last edited by BroMatt on October 11th, 2007, 8:22 am, edited 4 times in total.
4 Comments
Viewed 1504 times
by Anonymous on January 18th, 2008, 3:21 am
Most KJV Bibles that are used today is an 1800's revision and not the 1611. I have a 1611 KJV and the spelling is different. There are also added books in the Old Testament. 
-
Anonymous
- 1,000+ Poster
-
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: February 9th, 2007, 6:21 pm
-
by BroMatt on August 22nd, 2008, 9:22 am
I went to a car show and saw a 1951 Crosley in mint condition. Through the life of this car it has had some revisions done. It has had a new paint job, the interior has had some work done, the engine oil has been replaced quite a few times, the exhaust pipes were changed to nice looking chrome, and many other revisions were done to the car. And yet it was still being advertised as a 1951 car. SHOCK!!!!
How come nobody complained that it is false advertising for the car? But yet when it comes to the Bible people will say "you are not a KJV 1611 guy?".
It is just a another sad excuse to discredit the the Authorized Version of the Bible. I know that what I have in my hands is not an "original" but rather a copy, but I do know and can honestly say that I hold Gods preserved Words for the language that I speak even though it has went through minor language revisions.
Your logic does not fit. As for the added books, you must be talking about the Apocrypha. Notice where they were placed in the Bible, carefully placed in between the Old and New Testament. They were placed there for historical records. A simple study will show you that. You have maps/concordance/notes in your Bible? I sure hope you do not think that those are added books as far as Preservation goes.
You are also wrong about the 1800 revision. From 1769, the text of the Authorized Version has remained unchanged
Last edited by BroMatt on August 29th, 2008, 3:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
BroMatt
- Big Stick Wielder
-
- Posts: 3882
- Joined: December 6th, 2002, 8:27 pm
- Location: Connecticut
- Blog: View Blog (8)
-
by Anonymous on November 14th, 2008, 1:15 pm
[quote="BroMatt"]I went to a car show and saw a 1951 Crosley in mint condition. Through the life of this car it has had some revisions done. It has had a new paint job, the interior has had some work done, the engine oil has been replaced quite a few times, the exhaust pipes were changed to nice looking chrome, and many other revisions were done to the car. And yet it was still being advertised as a 1951 car. SHOCK!!!!
How come nobody complained that it is false advertising for the car? But yet when it comes to the Bible people will say "you are not a KJV 1611 guy?".
It is just a another sad excuse to discredit the the Authorized Version of the Bible. I know that what I have in my hands is not an "original" but rather a copy, but I do know and can honestly say that I hold Gods preserved Words for the language that I speak even though it has went through minor language revisions.
Your logic does not fit. As for the added books, you must be talking about the Apocrypha. Notice where they were placed in the Bible, carefully placed in between the Old and New Testament. They were placed there for historical records. A simple study will show you that. You have maps/concordance/notes in your Bible? I sure hope you do not think that those are added books as far as Preservation goes.
You are also wrong about the 1800 revision. From 1769, the text of the Authorized Version has remained unchanged[/quote]
Authorized version? Authorized by who?
-
Anonymous
- 1,000+ Poster
-
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: February 9th, 2007, 6:21 pm
-
by Anonymous on November 14th, 2008, 1:44 pm
[quote="BroMatt"]snip...From 1769, the text of the Authorized Version has remained unchanged[/quote] Well then, if the edition you use has fewer than the 80 books listed in the 1611 edition, then technically it cannot be UNCHANGED!  Look, I have no problem with the KJV bible as I have several of them in my library. However, to say that is the best english translation is only an opinion. It would be, IMHO, better to say that the KJV is the most widely used english language bible in history.
-
Anonymous
- 1,000+ Poster
-
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: February 9th, 2007, 6:21 pm
-
|
November 2008
October 2007
